Loading...
10-11-10 PC MinutesRegular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, October 11, 2010. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Schmidgall was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes August 9, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the first paragraph on page 6 and noted that the words "found in" were used twice erroneously in the first sentence. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 9, 2010 minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment - Preliminary Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75, Amendment #3 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center. Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD in order to tear down the existing building and construct a new 2-level store on the same site. He gave a brief history of the property and stated that Menards has been at this location since 1981. Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the existing store is approximately 128,000 square feet in area on one level and the proposed new store would be approximately 250,000 square feet on two levels. The applicant is also proposing a 42,000 square foot warehouse area along the north property line and a garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas on the east side of the store. The garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape material in the front parking lot as allowed in their current PUD Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 2 Grimes noted that this property is currently zoned I-394 Mixed Use. However, it is the City Attorney's opinion that, because Menards is already an existing PUD, they can go through the PUD amendment process with this proposal. Grimes explained that one concern regarding this proposal is the issue of parking. He noted that the size of the parking lot will increase by only 23 parking stalls for a total 376 spaces which is significantly fewer than what is required in the Zoning Code. Menards has stated that they feel 376 parking spaces will be adequate but staff is proposing that if they need more spaces some of the yard space behind the building will have to be used for additional parking. Grimes referred to the proposed landscaping and discussed storm water quality for the site.. He noted that staff has met with the applicant regarding Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission standards and they've agreed to meet the Level 1 standards for water quality. He explained that Menards doesn't have their storm water plans finished yet, but they will be available by the time the Final PUD Plan is approved. He added that Menards has proposed the creation of bio-filtration ponds and an underground storage system to help meet the Level 1 standards. The installation of the bio-filtration ponds will require some trees to be removed along Market Street, Wayzata Blvd and Hampshire Ave. He added that Menards will also have to do a tree preservation plan and probably mitigation. Grimes referred to the signage on the site and explained that the current pylon sign is an existing non-conforming use so it can stay. However, the signage on the building will be reduced by several hundred square feet. Grimes referred to the elevation drawings and said that staff would prefer if all of the sides of the building were done in the same finish material as is being proposed for the front since all four sides of the property are visible. He added that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in his memo. Waldhauser stated that in the I-394 Corridor Study one of the long-term goals was to have another east/west street between I-394 and Laurel rather than having a "zigzag" access to the business. She asked who would bear the cost if the City wanted to split this property in half with a new east/west road. She suggested removing the frontage road and having the warehouse and lumber yard on one side of a parkway/road and the retail on the other side. She questioned the feasibility and the cost of such a configuration. Grimes agreed that the I-394 Corridor Study does suggest an additional east/west connection and ideally that is what the City would like, but at this time the City could not pay the acquisition and utility costs. Waldhauser questioned the re-use of this property as something other than a big box store if it is not split. Cera stated that ideally one might want to match the plans in the I-394 Corridor study but the Commission also has to look at what is realistic. He asked if variances can be approved within a PUD or if they are subject to the same requirements as other variance requests. Grimes stated that PUDs are a zoning issue and because this property is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 3 already a PUD it can continue to be a PUD and they have the right to ask for an amendment. He added that a PUD also allows the City to require certain things it may not otherwise be able to, such as water quality improvements. He explained that there is currently minimal storm water management on the Menards site so this proposal will be a significant improvement in-that regard. Cera asked why the number of curb cuts on the east side of the parking lot has been reduced. Grimes stated that reducing the curb cuts created more space for parking stalls and also having fewer openings creates less confusion in parking lots. He added that the City Engineer feels the proposed number of curb cuts will function well. Segelbaum expressed concern regarding the driveways on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that he agrees they may not need additional parking stalls, but they may need additional access. Eck agreed. Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, referred to the condition in Mark Grimes' report regarding the front facade material being mimicked on all sides of the building. He stated that he thinks he'll have a hard time getting Menards to go along with that, especially on the north side along Laurel, because it would be a substantial cost and that side of the property won't be highly visible. Cera asked about changing the east and west facades. Morrissey said he thought that might be feasible. He referred to the site plans and noted that there will also be 14-foot high pallet stacking fencing around the yard. area to serve as screening and security. Grimes added that the Zoning Code requires outdoor storage to be screened. Segelbaum questioned if the fencing has to be 14 feet in height and asked if it could be 8 feet in height on the east side along Hampshire Ave. Morrissey said the 14-foot fence height is consistent with what they currently have and it allows for storage as well. McCarty noted that size of the store is doubling. He asked Morrissey if they are planning on doubling the types of products they carry or if they are going to double the amount of the products they already sell. Morrissey said they are definitely going to increase the variety of products they sell along with having a grocery segment, a showcase area for kitchens.and bathrooms and a garden center which is one of the main reasons for redeveloping this property. Eck asked Morrissey if the objective is to do more business with the same customers or of they are hoping to attract new customers. Morrissey said they are hoping to keep their existing customers and attract new ones. Eck questioned how adding only 23 new parking spaces would be acceptable. Morrissey said he finds most zoning codes require too much parking and that they typically ask cities for parking variances. He stated that Menards doesn't have as many customers as a retailer like Target or Walmart. They have a more steady flow of customers but not a large number of customers at certain times of the year. He added that they have done parking studies in the past and typically their stores require approximately 250 parking Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 4 spaces. Eck asked Morrissey if the current store has more parking spaces than they really need. Morrissey said yes. Segelbaum asked about Menards' plans in the event they don't have sufficient parking. Morrissey said they would probably allocate employee parking spaces in the back yard/warehouse area. Grimes noted that Menards could also have an off-site parking arrangement with nearby businesses if needed. Waldhauser asked if the footprint of the building is staying the same. Morrissey said the new building's footprint will be similar to the existing building's footprint. Waldhauser said she would like to see more trees on this site and that she doesn't understand why there can't be trees located in the bio-retention ponds. Morrissey explained that the bio-retention ponds have drain the buried underneath engineered soils. He added that the ponds can't support a tree's root structure and only specific plants will be used to help filter the water. McCarty questioned why the parking lot in front of the store isn't using the same underground storage tank design that is being proposed in the back lumberyard area. Morrissey stated that the bio-retention ponds are preferred by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and there isn't enough room in the lumberyard area to install bio-retention ponds. Grimes added that the soil types in the lumberyard area are more suitable for the proposed underground tank system and the soil types in the front of the store are more suitable for the bio- retention ponds. He said it is his understanding that the way the project is proposed is the best way to get to the Level 1 standards for water quality. Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could suggest that the parking areas be reduced by 10 to 15 percent in order to allow for additional landscaping and to get the space required to allow for another driveway access to be installed along Hampshire Ave. Waldhauser referred to the building materials proposed and asked if Menards has given any thought to splitting or combining the types of materials used in order to break up the facade. She asked if the wooden posts with the flags in the front of the store are necessary. Morrissey stated that the building proposed is Menards' prototype and has the identifiable Menards entryway. Waldhauser said the store is out of place in the city and will look like Fort Apache. She said she would like to use any leverage the Planning Commission has in order to get an attractive asset to the community. Morrissey stated that this is a financially fragile project and discussed the high costs involved due to the soil conditions. He said Menards is proud of the look of their stores and he would appreciate some leniency regarding the aesthetics. He added he is willing to use the brick stamped concrete on the south, east and west sides of the building which is an upgrade. McCarty said he would be happy if the sides of the building were at least the same color as the front and not necessarily brick stamped concrete. Cera agreed that he'd like to see the buff color on the entire building and more trees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 5 Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Grimes noted that the Commissioners' concerns seem to be additional landscaping, an additional driveway on Hampshire Ave., and the aesthetics on the east and west sides of the building. Waldhauser agreed and reiterated that the Commissioners concerns could probably be addressed if Menards is able to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces. She added that she would like to see center island plantings with large trees as well. McCarty stated that he is overwhelmed by the size of the lumberyard/storage/garden center area and the 14-foot high fence. He suggested that area be reduced in size. Morrissey referred to the site plan and explained that there needs to be adequate space for cars to maneuver in the garden center area. Segelbaum agreed that the proposed fencing will make the site look very enclosed. Waldhauser suggested installing a different type of fencing along the east side of the building which would allow people to see through to the garden center. She added that the Laurel side of the property is a parkway and she doesn't want it to look industrial. Cera said he feels the Commission has given Menards some good general guidance but they don't need to micro-manage where the fences are located. Grimes reminded the Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council and that Menards can make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission or not. Kluchka said he thinks the I-394 Corridor study has been set aside for this proposal and he won't vote in favor of it without addressing how it aligns with the study. Segelbaum expressed concern about the safety hazards of having two curb cuts along Wayzata Blvd. and suggested having one driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. and one driveway access on Hampshire Ave. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like some trade-off regarding toning down the color and updating the store to an urban setting. Kluchka stated that Golden Valley is competing in this area with the West End Development in St. Louis Park which is a very high end development. He asked how the store in Eden Prairie was able to have its facade changed. Morrissey stated that the Eden Prairie store is anon-prototypical store. He explained that they didn't have to deal with the soil conditions in Eden Prairie that they are dealing with in Golden Valley which is taking away a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere. He added that the store in Eden Prairie was also started in a better economic climate and reiterated that the Golden Valley project is an economically fragile project. Waldhauser reviewed the Zoning Code criteria used when considering a PUD. She said she feels that the access to the site and the storm water treatment methods being proposed are improvements and this proposal will be keeping a viable business in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 6 Golden Valley. She stated that there is nothing inconsistent with this proposal considering what is currently in the I-394 Corridor but it does not meet her criteria for the planned land uses in the Corridor. She stated there is not much the City can do to preserve trees on this site and there is no positive enhancement, but the adjoining wetlands are being preserved. She stated that this development precludes the construction of any type of housing development or mixed use development in the future which is something they can't control because it is an existing use, but it doesn't add to the objectives for the area. She stated the proposal works and is functional, but she doesn't see anything creative about it and it doesn't do anything to move the City toward its mixed use vision. Rather, it is a big box with a stockade around it. She stated that the proposal uses the existing infrastructure but it doesn't provide any open space or enhance the street alignment. Kluchka added that any developer of property around Menards could potentially say they don't have to use quality materials because of the precedent Menards would set. Waldhauser said this development is helpful in that they are proposing to build up with two stories rather than rebuilding a new one-story building that wouldn't fit in with the community. She stated that the development isn't consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals but it does create a building that is energy efficient and encourages sustainability with the water retention and filtering. Grimes reminded the Commission that this is an existing PUD so the criteria for meeting the objectives to become a PUD don't really apply because this is an amendment and they met the objectives when it originally became a PUD. He added that what Menards is proposing is a legal use that is essentially the same use that has been there for a long time. Kluchka said he feels the same criteria should be considered for an amended PUD. Grimes noted that part of the I-394 Corridor study states that the City does not want businesses to leave, rather it wants to help businesses enhance their property. He added that the proposal on this site will improve the storm water management issues in the Corridor. Kluchka stated that this is a large development in the Corridor and it bears a lot of thought. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the request by Menards -PUD 75, Amendment #3 to replace the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center with the following conditions. Commissioners Kluchka and McCarty voted no. 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 7 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Ave. shall be enhanced. 7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot. 8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be another access added along Hampshire Ave. or have only one access on Hampshire Ave. and one access on Wayzata Blvd. 9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that there will be a presentation by Hennepin County at the October 12, 2010 Council/Manager meeting regarding the Bottineau Transitway Study. Segelbaum discussed the September 28 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting and informed the Planning Commission that the BZA would like them to review the language in the Zoning Code regarding the setback requirements for structures built prior to 1982 (Section 11.21, Subdivisions 13 and 14). He stated that the BZA would also like the Planning Commission to help clarify the definitions for porches, stoops, landings and decks and the setbacks associated with them. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 8 Grimes stated that staff is working on some language revisions which will be reviewed at a future Council/Manager meeting and will then come to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. 5. Other Business Election of Officers Eck nominated Waldhauser for Chair and Kluchka for Vice Chair. Kluchka nominated himself for Chair. Cera nominated himself for Vice Chair. Upon a vote by the Commission the position of Chair will be held by Waldhauser and the position of Vice Chair will be held by Kluchka. 6. .Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary